4.6 Article

Modeling Motor Learning Using Heteroscedastic Functional Principal Components Analysis

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION
Volume 113, Issue 523, Pages 1003-1015

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/01621459.2017.1379403

Keywords

Functional data; Kinematic data; Motor control; Probabilistic PCA; Variance modeling; Variational Bayes

Funding

  1. National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering [R21EB018917]
  2. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke [R01NS097423-01]
  3. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [R01HL123407]
  4. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [R01HL123407] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  5. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF BIOMEDICAL IMAGING AND BIOENGINEERING [R21EB018917] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  6. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS AND STROKE [R01NS097423] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We propose a novel method for estimating population-level and subject-specific effects of covariates on the variability of functional data. We extend the functional principal components analysis framework by modeling the variance of principal component scores as a function of covariates and subject-specific random effects. In a setting where principal components are largely invariant across subjects and covariate values, modeling the variance of these scores provides a flexible and interpretable way to explore factors that affect the variability of functional data. Our work is motivated by a novel dataset from an experiment assessing upper extremity motor control, and quantifies the reduction in movement variability associated with skill learning. The proposed methods can be applied broadly to understand movement variability, in settings that include motor learning, impairment due to injury or disease, and recovery. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available